Abstract: Philosopher Jurgen Habermas identified the idea of the public sphere - an environment that fosters rational debate where all are welcome. Haubermas claimed that during the 1680 - 1730's, coffeehouses fostered an environment that held the public sphere as - a sphere which mediates between society and the state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion. Through the analysis of primary sources such as the diary of Samuel Pepy's and The Spectator by Joseph Addison and Richard Steele (1853), I analyze how the social reality of the growth of the middle class was one of the key aspects of the normative ideal in the rise of economic awareness in the Royal Exchange in London. The conclusion between the two different aspects of London life are derived from the solemn sources that hold great significance to the true power of the middle class' economic capabilities.
Keywords: public sphere; Jurgen Habermas; coffeehouses; London; social reality; normative ideal; the Golden Age of London coffeehouses (1680 - 1730)
According to Habermas (1980), the public sphere is defined as “a realm of our social life in which something approaching public opinion can be formed” (p. 198). The author claims that it is “a sphere which mediates between society and the state, in which the public organizes itself as the bearer of public opinion” (p. 198). The definition of the public sphere presupposes that “citizens behave as a public body when they confer in an unrestricted - that is with the guarantee with freedom of assembly and association and the freedom to express and publish their opinions - about matters of general interest.” (p. 198) therefore expressing the idea that freedom to express opinion was tolerated all throughout different locations in the coffeehouses.
Along with the freedom of expressing an opinion, another prerequisite is that “ We speak of the political public sphere in contrast, for instance, to the literary one, when public discussion deals with objects connected to the activity of the state.” (p. 199) hence stated that these were places where public opinions can be created. Another imperative aspect to the public sphere is that “Although state authority is so to speak the executor of the political public sphere, it is not a part of it” (p. 198) ergo the political debates were separated from the government allowing for rational debate to be held without governmental repercussions. With the separation from the government, this allowed for an atmosphere that fostered rational debate as stated by Habermas (1980) that “Though mere opinions seem to persist unchanged in their natural state as a kind sediment of history, public opinion” (p. 198).
The public sphere, according to Habermas (1980), must also be be open to fostering rational debate as stated that “Though mere opinions seem to persist unchanged in their natural state as a kind sediment of history, public opinion” (p. 199) The definition of the public sphere also necessitates that “A portion of the public sphere comes into being in every conversation in which private individuals assemble to form a public body.” (p. 198) accordingly guaranteeing that access is given to all citizens willing to participate in the rational debates being held. Another rudiment to the public sphere is that “In a large public body this kind of communication requires specific means for transmitting information and influencing those who receive it.” (p. 198) suggesting that people may gain information through the media with the influence that these specific means are of public opinion.
The definition of the public sphere also presupposes that “ Only when the exercise of political control is effectively subordinated to the democratic demand that information be accessible to the public.” (p. 199) therefore disclosing that the government is willing to provide information about affairs of state. The public sphere, according to Habermas (1980), allows for people to put aside their private interest as stated that “They then behave neither like business or professional people transacting private affairs, nor like members of a constitutional order subject to the legal constraints of a state bureaucracy.” (p. 198) Pasque Rose’s proposal of normative ideal versus social reality holds to the fact that the atmosphere in the coffeehouses fell true to that of social reality.
The reality behind these normative ideals would contradict the key aspects of the public sphere stated by Habermas (1980) that were said to be held in the coffeehouses, which would instead fall to the social realities of life of a Londoner in the mid 17th century. The growth of the middle class during the 1680’s-1730’s was one of the key aspects of the rise of economic awareness as well as the rise in the Royal Exchange in London.
Ringing In All Potential Buyers
Markman Ellis (2004) stated that “The sociability of the coffeehouse, especially it’s convivial accessibility, also lent itself to the activities of these new financial markets, bringing potential buyers and sellers together in the coffee room to meet and agree terms.” expressing the ideas of bringing the different social classes into the coffeehouses. This importance is by means to increase the demand for market goods, owing to the fact that a majority of the middle class were uprising merchants being supported by the upper and high middle class investors.
“When the day grows too busy for these gentlemen to enjoy any longer the pleasures of their deshabille, with any manner of confidence, they give place to men who have good business or good senses in their faces, and come to enjoy the coffee-house either to transact affairs, or enjoy conversation” (chpt 11, p. 316, The Spectator) Steele (1853) stated. While describing how the emergence of well respected businessmen arose after the casual political public opinion discussions came to a demise, these discussions were prominent in engaging new methods of trade not only through exchanges of goods but exchanges in finances.
Performance in the Coffeehouses
In ``The Spectator”, Ellis (2004) stated that “For many London merchants, attendance at the coffeehouse was at least as important as their performance on the exchange itself, for the two were a horizontally integrated network of gossip and news.” (p. 171). Ellis (2004) was nudging at the importance of the attendance at the coffeehouses in comparison to the work on the Royal Exchange, stating that they are held to the same level of significance.
This being due to the fact that there is nearly an equal amount of opportunities held within the coffeehouses due to the willing investors/tradesmen found within them. Ebulus was a man known for his generosity in investing in merchants and upcoming businessmen, as well as for pushing man to be the best possible version of himself. “In the exigencies of his friends he lends, at legal value, considerable sums, which he might highly increase by rolling in the public stocks.” (pg 317, chpt 49, The spectator) Steele (1853) stated in regards of Ebulus. These lends of considerable sums are what drove the middle class businessmen and merchants to succeed and attend coffeehouse exchanges.
Due to the constant encouragement from Ebulus towards the men becoming the best versions of themselves, they felt inclined to make themselves more desirable for future investors. This constant desire for the hope of future trades and investments in the Royal Exchange was a leading factor to a stronger outcome in the overall middle class.
Rapid Expansion of the Market
“Select City coffeehouses such as Johnathan’s, Garraway’s, and Lloyd’s became central to the spatial organization of the commercial activity of the London financial markets. In this period, too, the market was expanding rapidly.” (chpt 11, p. 171, The Spectator) voiced by Steele, revealing the true growth of coffeehouses within the Royal Exchange.
The growth in this area allowed for a rapid increase in the overall wealth of the middle class due to the opportunities given to them as they attended the coffeehouse discussions with more and more potential investors. Also voiced by Steele, with the intent in exclaiming the true significance of this increase of coffeehouses, that “Britain was undergoing a transformation that economic historians have described as ‘a financial revolution’”. (chpt 11, p. 171, The Spectator) This major transformation changed the entirety of the atmosphere in the coffeehouses due to the main realization that said locations were the economic hubs of the 1700’s.
The normative ideal of these coffeehouses were to ignite the fire of the economy due to the crowd that they were said to attract, as well as where the specific house’s locations were. This idealized attraction to the economic discussion based locations held to social reality that was not found to be much different. The reality of the public was that if they applied themselves to the given opportunities given to them by the wealthy upper class men, they too could succeed and help raise the London economy.
Ellis (2004) expressed the idea of social reality and the public sphere in the coffeehouses by commenting that “ The coffee-houses of Exchange Alley were the direct beneficiaries of this temple of commerce. In 1720 John Strype remarked that as the vicinity of the Exchange was ‘crouded with Merchants, and Tradesmen’ the area was noted for its “Taverns, Coffee-houses, Eating-houses, and other such like Places of public Reception, as they make considerable Gains, so they pay vast Rents’.” (p. 167).
He expressed the public sphere by revealing once again, how the locations were a place that guaranteed access to all citizens by including, not limited to, people such as merchants and tradesmen. These described citizens of London express social reality of the relationship between the rise of the economic awareness in the Royal exchange and the growth of the economy in the middle class by showing how the coffeehouses of Exchange Alley were the “direct beneficiaries” to the growth of the economic awareness.
Joseph Addison (1853) described that “Factors in he trading world are what ambassadors are in the political world; the negotiate affairs, conclude treaties, and maintain a good correspondence between those wealth societies of men that are divided from one another by seas and oceans, or live on the different extremities of a continent.” (No. 69, p.418, The Spectator) leading for the interpretation of the heavy influence of trading world on the political world. These influences are what hold the drive for success in the trading/economic world in order to be held to a higher status in the political world, all by leading towards an overall growth in the middle class by creating these new political opportunities.
After the Golden Age
The stock exchange in London and in New York obliterated their coffee-house origins, seeking greater glory under other names, the dissolving of these coffeehouse allowed for Darwinism to take action. The strong successful tradesmen flourished and went on to become strong influential business men while it left the smaller, less involved tradesmen to focus on their trading and markets while staying stagnant in the economy or ended in depleting as a whole.
Ellis (2004) signified that “Even to this day, when Lloyd’s of London is the worlds largest insurance market and is housed in an elegant steel-and-glass building designed by Richard Rogers, the trading floor makes architectural reference to the coffee-house tables around which the underwriters gathered in the early eighteenth century and building’s porters are called waiters.” (p. 184). Ellis (2004) expressed how although the coffeehouses, such as Lloyd’s, are no longer in business, the history that they have had will forever remain in the culture of the English and World Economy.
The growth of the middle class during the 1680’s-1730’s was one of the key aspects of the rise of economic awareness as well as the rise in the Royal Exchange due to the social reality of the London citizens. They proved the normative ideal of the economic awareness during the Golden Age of coffeehouses, all by allowing for the rapid growth of the middle class in regards to the public sphere.
Shea C Flannery
About The Author
Shea Flannery is a first-year Spanish and History student at St. Lawrence University in Canton, new York. On campus, Shea plays on the varsity Field Hockey team and is an active member in SAAC, Student Athletic Advisory Committee.
Shea is currently enrolled in London Coffeehouse Culture & Modernity, a first-year seminar course that develops oral presentation skills and research skills. The course explores the role of London coffeehouses in the development of democracy and the public sphere in the 1700’s.
In Shea’s free time, she enjoys spending her time with wellness and health groups on campus such as The Dub, Campus Kitchen, Power House, and The Outdoors Club. When she isn’t at practice, in class, or at a club meeting/event, you can find Shea playing the piano underneath Griffith’s in the music practice rooms as well as in the Sullivan Student Center with her friends doing homework.
Shea came to St. Lawrence from her very small Upstate New York hometown of Cazenovia. Before St. Lawrence, Shea attended Cazenovia High School. During the summer, Shea works at a camp in Denmark, Maine, Camp Wyonegonic, as a sailing instructor.